


Portrayal and Reception of Moral Dilemma Within Doctor Who (1963-2020)

by ineternity



Category: Doctor Who (1963), Doctor Who (2005)
Genre: Analysis, Christian Imagery, Dubious Ethics, Episode: s06e10 The Girl Who Waited, Episode: s10e11 World Enough and Time, Meta, Moral Dilemmas, Moral Lessons, Philosophy, Serial: s135 The Caves of Androzani, dissertation
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2020-10-13
Updated: 2020-10-13
Packaged: 2021-03-07 18:26:49
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Chapters: 1
Words: 7,568
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/26992132
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/ineternity/pseuds/ineternity
Summary: An exploration of moral philosophy within Doctor Who conveyed through three episodes. A reflection on the morality of the Doctor, their decisions and impacts on those around them.Yes, I actually submitted this as a dissertation.
Comments: 2
Kudos: 12





	Portrayal and Reception of Moral Dilemma Within Doctor Who (1963-2020)

**Author's Note:**

> my tutor: it's not that deep  
> me:

**Introduction**

Doctor Who is a multi-faceted, evolving television programme that operates around scenarios that supersede human experience. By using the show as a medium, I can explore philosophical ideas outside of the human sphere of lived experience and individuals can relate their own problems to the storylines that appear. My exploration follows traditional academic methods used by respected theorists and draws critical parallels, as hypothetical scenarios are used as a device to develop further theories. The aim is to use scenarios to increase understanding around moral dilemmas particularly with reference to the online community of the programme’s fans.

Doctor Who is a British, science fiction show aimed at families and young people, it has been aired by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) since 1963 and has developed an international fanbase, with its 50th anniversary episode airing simultaneously in 75 countries (BBC, nd). The show initially ran for 26 years followed by a hiatus during which a movie was released in 1995. In 2005 the show was relaunched under the direction of Russell T. Davies and has continued since. The current actor in the lead role is Jodie Whittaker, the first female performer to play the title character.

The main character of the show is an alien, a Time Lord called ‘The Doctor,’ who can avoid death by regenerating their body cells and changing their appearance in the process. The show’s longevity is due in part to the Doctor’s ability to outlive the actors playing the main role. As of 2019, there have been 14 on-screen incarnations of The Doctor (BBC, 2018), each Doctor has adopted companions that travel alongside them through time and space, although these characters are replaced regularly. The Doctor faces alien and humanoid adversaries in dangerous situations, taking on the role of conflict resolver. The programme’s storylines often grapple with the idea of goodness and The Doctor is portrayed as being a fundamentally moral and good person. Questions such as ‘Do I have the right?’ challenge each viewer to cast judgement upon the dilemmas (BBC, 1975).

The study considers the television company’s portrayal of moral dilemmas in terms of the script and the way the actors show particular moral traits and behaviours. The essay will also look at specific scenarios and their reception by fans of Doctor Who; long-term viewers of the show that share a basic understanding of its dynamic. Moral dilemmas will be the focus as they have been used for many years by philosophers to clarify philosophical and ethical theories. An argument by Socrates in Plato’s Republic is often the first fundamental dilemma cited by western philosophers; Socrates argues that a just resolution is, ‘…speaking the truth and paying one’s debts’ (Perry, 2015). Yancy (2010, p.198) states that a moral dilemma is, “… a situation in which there is a compelling moral reason to enact each of two possibilities, where it is not possible to enact both.” Dilemmas may be very difficult to resolve if there are strong conflicting moral reasons for taking either of the courses of action presented.

Chapter One will outline key philosophical concepts that relate to approaches to a moral dilemma, including some scenarios created to demonstrate the potential results of those theories. Chapter Two will explore dilemmas encountered in key episodes of the programme Doctor Who and how the theories detailed in Chapter One illuminate the moral position of The Doctor. Chapter Three will bring in the response of the fans, looking at the different reactions to and relationships with the programme in the context of a social media led feedback loop that was not available to earlier generations of fans.

**Chapter One- Review of relevant theories**

The aim of this chapter is to outline some key philosophical theories that are relevant and can be applied when investigating the moral dilemmas encountered and subsequent decisions made in select episodes of the BBC television programme ‘Doctor Who’.

People internationally, and across different cultures, share key moral codes to aid cooperation and social cohesion. Each individual should learn what is right from their community and behave in a similar way to others, that way they can pass these same values onto their children. Research singles out behaviours that require cooperation as being, “…always considered morally good’ (University of Oxford, 2019). A paper by Curry, Mullins, and Whitehouse (2017) proposes seven moral codes- ‘…helping kin, helping one’s group, reciprocating costs and benefits, displaying hawkish and dovish traits, dividing disputed resources, and respecting prior possession…’- that all societies agreed as being morally good. The research paper concludes that despite contrasting approaches in the form of Moral Foundation Theory, the seven identified codes, which encourage aiding and cooperating with others, provide a universal model of morality, which is supported by Greene (2015). Curry, Mullins and Whitehouse (2017), experienced researchers at the University of Oxford, acknowledged the limitations of the study size in the paper. Only 60 cultures were studied, and the data sources chosen did not identify whether any of the behaviours were more important than others.

Social and cultural changes are shaped over time through many different factors, arguably the largest of these is religion. Most European nations are predominantly Christian, whether Catholic, Protestant, Greek Orthodox or a branch identified as non-conformist, such as the Methodist or Presbyterian churches (Heneghan, 2018). Ideas of moral perfection vary in different cultures depending on the figures they idolise. The Christian God is one such idol in the western world, embodying ideas of mercy and a forgiving nature, as suggested in passages such as, ‘And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love’ (Corinthians 13:13 New International Version). Paul describes the qualities of God as these compassionate traits. Christian values fit well with motivations we idolise in films and books. The protagonist- especially in children’s fiction- is usually altruistic and helps others above themselves, for example, The Wizard of Oz (1939), has similarities to the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). A character- or characters- shows mercy and compassion towards another, aiding the other with a problem when the effort would not directly aid themselves. In this case, the Tinman, the Scarecrow and the Lion collaborate to help Dorothy escape from the land of Oz.

In the United Kingdom (UK), the Christian faith has had a strong connection with constitutional and legal systems. Laws forbidding homosexuality and abortion took direct inspiration from Bible verses found in the Old and New Testaments; however, UK society became more secular and tolerant with a focus on equality for all, consequently many of these laws were overturned in the 1960s. For example, homosexual acts between two men were decriminalised in 1967 under the Sexual Offences Act; in recent years civil ceremonies for single sex couples were brought in which have a similar legal status to marriage and in 2013 same sex marriage was legalised. Abortion is currently legal in the United Kingdom with professional medical support, though it is reasonable to point out that it is still controversial for many and has only been legalised in Northern Ireland this year, 2019.

Moral codes in society in the UK have changed over the years, with a significant factor seen as the, ‘...dramatic decline in the proportion of people who identify with Christianity’ (NatCen Social Research, 2018) Approximately 66% of the UK population identified as Christian in 1983; however, this percentage had dropped to 38% in 2018 (ONS, 2011). Historically Christian values and British values had been synonymous; however, more recently debates have arisen over what qualities classify as British morals and values (NatCen Social Research, 2018). According to UK Government guidelines, British values encompass respect for ‘democracy’, ‘the civil and criminal law of England’, ‘self-knowledge’ and ‘their own and other cultures’ (Department for Education, 2014). Guidance was introduced to help schools promote British values and behaviours to students with the focus on promoting democracy and encouraging loyalty to state infrastructure rather than personal belief. Although the initiative came from the Prevent strategy, to protect young people from becoming radicalised, the aim was to increase tolerance, respect and social cohesion (Department for Education, 2014b).

The influence of religion over moral values has lessened over time, with a study by the Rowntree Foundation (cited in Browne, 2008) finding that there has been a decline in traditional religious values in British Society. Increased diversity has led to the population following many different religions and so none can claim absolute authority. Immigrants from other countries and different cultures bring in their own views, beliefs, values and morals. Many different factors may now affect an individual’s decision making when faced with moral dilemmas. For example, an orthodox Christian may disregard non-believers as lawless deviants, ‘…for what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness?’ ([2 Corinthians 6:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Corinthians+6%3A14&version=ESV)) and consider themselves to be righteous and morally superior, despite others acting in accordance with the British constitution. Mullins and Whitehouse’s (2017) seven cultural values here diverge from typical religion, individuals may do good within their community; however, these actions negate outsiders.

The rejection of mainstream religion for either personally held moral values or state legislation has resulted in an increasing population of non-believers and ‘…affiliation with the Church of England… has halved since 1983 (from 40% to 20%)’ (NatCen Social Research, 2018). Evidence of the emergence of alternative religions is shown in formal documents, such as UK Government censuses (ONS, 2011). In 2011, 177,000 people even declared their religion as Jedi on the national census (BBC, 2016). With the rise in communication via the internet and rapid idea sharing becoming commonplace through media, communities have been able to spread ideas and start discussions with people from a larger variety of backgrounds. Ideas about alternative spirituality and arguments against established religion spread faster and through more reactive medias, such as Twitter and Reddit (Campbell, 2010). The rise in other beliefs means that none can claim absolute authority, people’s actions can no longer be judged by a single religious code. In a society of evolving values, we are compelled to consider all religions and belief systems before judging an action as morally good or bad.

Theorists have studied peoples’ behaviour when considering what is right and wrong. Utilitarianism is a well-known and significant theory which can be used to analyse people’s actions and decisions and determine whether an action can be considered morally right. David Hume (1738), Jeremy Bentham (1789) and John Stuart Mill (1863) developed the concept of utilitarianism (Duignan & West, nd), which is, “…a radically impartial view: it tells us to consider things as if ‘from the point of view of the universe’ (Sidgwick, 1907 cited in et al., 2015), with the end justifying the means (Savulescu cited in Cook, 2014). Utilitarianism, “…takes the ultimate good to be the greatest happiness of the greatest number and defines the rightness of actions in terms of their contribution to the general happiness.” (Bullock, Stallybrass & Trombley, 1988). Singer (1979 cited in Cook, 2014) states that we should transcend our narrow, natural sympathies and aim to promote the greater good of humanity as a whole, or even the good of all sentient beings.’

Practical scenarios are used to illustrate certain principles in moral dilemmas and facilitate an understanding of the complex reasoning behind decision making, a well-known example is The Trolley Problem. A person is presented with an unstoppable train that is heading towards a group of four people on the rail tracks and can change the points to send the train onto an alternative line that has one person on the track. The typical responses to this problem are as follows: allow the train to continue on its track, in the process running over four people, or divert the train onto a different track resulting in the death of one person. In diverting the train from its original course, you are responsible for the death of the one but have allowed the survival of four people, by doing nothing however you are not responsible for any of the deaths (Panahi, 2016). The textbook utilitarian action would be to save four people over one as this leads to the survival, and therefore happiness, of the majority. 

Utilitarianism has been criticised as the approach to such problems may not always be considered the ‘right’ response. Bernard Williams was a leading ethical philosopher in the 20th century who rejected the idea that human actions could be captured in one systematic moral theory. He rejected Utilitarianism simply because of the suffix ‘ism’ and stated that this way of ethical thinking is often deliberately simple minded and lacking complex human cognition. Williams (1981 cited in Chappell, 2018) states that, ‘As a normative system, utilitarianism is inevitably a systematisation of our responses, a way of telling us how we _should_ feel or react.’ If a person responds to every situation by following what utilitarianism teaches without considering the context behind the dilemma, they are simply following a system and not thinking for themselves. Negative Responsibility- the responsibility placed on an individual for failing to prevent something- also applies as an individual is responsible for either what they bring about or fail to prevent [Lucas, 1995]. Utilitarians value any outcome creating the best scenario for the majority. By not performing an action or preventing an action you may be responsible for failing to maximise the welfare of the majority and your action deemed morally wrong.

Williams (cited in Chappell, 2018) casts doubt on the integrity some place on the actions of utilitarians. The issue being that a person’s actions cannot properly encapsulate the relationship between a human’s beliefs and the actions they take. A true utilitarian would disregard the integrity of the action and instead dissociate the individual from their emotions. Williams further argues that some things can be categorised as ‘hav(ing) non-consequential value’ when considering whether an action was initially morally right. This concept will be discussed in the section concerning Kant’s Axe.

Non-utilitarianism is triggered by a natural distaste towards causing harm to those you have a special relationship with (Greene, 2008). In a hypothetical scenario, such as The Trolley Problem, a non-utilitarian would most likely save an individual known to them even if this condemns many others to pain, suffering or death: their personal interests would override the needs of the many.

A further challenge to the emotionally neutral consequentialism of Utilitarianism is Deontology, a theory largely associated with the prominent Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant. He believed that one’s actions are inherently right or wrong regardless of the scenario or consequence and lying is inherently wrong. Kant used the term Categorical Imperative to describe a, ‘...position that is an absolute morally correct action for all people and circumstances’, suggesting that people should choose to act in a way they wish would become universal law. Kant suggests that being consistently truthful would have the greatest possible impact on the welfare of the population. The approach supports, ‘...a moral law that is unconditional or absolute for all agents, the validity or claim of which does not depend on any ulterior motive or end’ (Encyclopaedia Britannica, nd).

A scenario used to illustrate these principles is Kant’s Axe, which asks you to place yourself in a situation where you answer the door to an intimidating man with a large axe who asks the whereabouts of your friend. You give the man false information: your friend is hiding in the store cupboard. The man goes to search the store cupboard for your friend but does not find them because they are hiding in the bedroom (Open University, 2014). In this scenario there have been positive consequences from your actions; however, from a deontologist’s perspective your actions were morally wrong as you needed to lie to save your friend. In an alternative route, the scenario shows the man going to the store cupboard and in the time that it has taken him to walk from the door, your friend has moved to the store cupboard where they are then murdered. From a deontologist’s perspective Your misinformation was morally wrong and would have also played a role in causing your friend’s death.

An alternative theory used to explain the thinking processes involved in judging an action as right or wrong was developed by Lawrence Kohlberg, a psychology professor. Kohlberg was largely influenced by Jean Piaget’s earlier theory of Moral Development which suggested two types of moral thinking: Heteronomous and Autonomous morality. The former described children as obeying externally set rules and judging behaviour as bad depending on the severity of the punishment it received. The latter describes children as following their own rules, ‘Children recognise there is no right or wrong and that morality depends on actions not consequences’ (McLeod, 2015). Children follow a more Kantian approach to thinking; they focus on the morals behind an action and how they will be rewarded for it rather than thinking of negative consequences. 

Kohlberg’s six stages of development are based on children’s responses to a set of dilemmas (Bukatko and Daehler, 2012) grouped into three main levels: Preconventional, Conventional and Postconventional Morality. The first stage describes the desire of young children to be obedient and follow rules, these patterns of behaviour are motivated by the desire to please a parent or other senior figure. When making decisions, children focus on receiving rewards to satisfy themselves for choosing the right answer (Sanders, 2019). In religious communities, children make decisions based on appeasing a deity or modelling themselves for the afterlife. 

At the conventional stage a child is more concerned with conforming to the view of a majority and upholding the moral paradigm. They consider the feelings and motives of others and feel compelled to respond empathetically (Bukatko & Daehler, 2012). Behaviour is determined by the favour and approval they gain from others, social cues and societal order (Sanders, 2019).

At the postconventional level there is a level of individualism present. The child, or adult, takes shared responsibility for upholding laws and rules but also responds with their own perspective and consider abstract concepts such as justice and dignity (Bukatko & Daehler, 2012). If they see a law as unjust or discriminatory, they are more likely to consider alternatives to lessen the negative impacts on the person or group affected (Sanders, 2019). A critique of Kohlberg could be that his studies were male centric and discarded the female perspective, which may have presented sex differences in attitudes to moral dilemmas (Gilligan, 1987).

Many theories are relevant in the study of moral dilemmas, most prominently the values we adhere to as a society. Although an individual may not outwardly identify with a philosophy, there are methods of classifying actions that allow us an insight into how people prioritise and value others.

**Chapter Two: Application and analysis**

This chapter will explore moral dilemmas that occur in three selected episodes of Doctor Who, one from the period regarded as the show’s ‘Classic’ run, before it was decommissioned for a number of years, and two from the period covering its return to television broadcast until 2019. Links between the scenarios in these episodes and examples explored in the first chapter will be elaborated on and tested. There will also be an examination of responsibility and how character responses can be classified according to relevant theory. Secondary research and academic texts will be used to analyse the scenarios and the decisions made.

We face moral dilemmas in our everyday lives; however, fictional scenarios may be broadcast which reflect the viewer’s experience of actual dilemmas. Unrealistic scenarios, through the medium of television, can enable the exploration of life or death scenarios and their consequences in an acceptable and clearly understood manner. Doctor Who is an example of a programme that portrays the fantastical and the exaggerated, with the action frequently taking place in alien settings, giving the opportunity for parallels with new experiences and situations encountered by the audience, especially young people in the process of moving through the stages of moral development identified by Kohlberg. The following scenarios have been selected to explore three moral dilemmas.

**_The Caves of Androzani (BBC,1984)_ **

The Caves of Androzani was aired 21 years after the programme’s inception - and featured the Fifth incarnation of The Doctor. The scenario chosen involves the Doctor landing on an alien planet where both he and his companion are infected with a deadly alien virus to which a rare substance ‘Spectrox’ is the only cure. After stealing two vials of the curing substance from the caves below the civilisation he drops one, smashing it and leaving a single dose left over. The Doctor faces a dilemma as he can use the single vial of antidote to either save his own life or that of his companion, Peri. Logically, Peri has less utility as a person than The Doctor as her life will be much shorter and she has few practical thinking skills. Ultimately her value in an earth-based society is smaller as she lacks qualifications, skills and life experience. The Doctor, despite having the ability to regenerate, would have his life shortened by the disease and therefore would be able to save fewer planets or perform other good acts. In the episode he chooses to save the life of his companion.

The Doctor displays empathy and shows that he values selfless acts over utility, acknowledging a responsibility for the vulnerable individuals around him. A deontologist would value the selfless action of the Doctor as inherently good, with his behaviour based on his duty of care , whereas a teleologist (Encyclopedia Britannica, nd), a person who only considers the consequences when judging whether an action is morally right, or utilitarian, would view his action as minimising utility.

The dilemma in the Caves of Androzani (1984) is similar to the Hospital dilemma devised by Moore, Clark and Kane (2008) which was used in research by Kahane et al (2015) to explore utilitarian and moral judgements. The researchers, experienced researchers who were specialists in Ethics and Psychology, collected data when they used twenty-four hypothetical dilemmas with their participants. In the Hospital dilemma a choice is given between killing a patient by making them ingest a lethal airborne substance or allowing yourself and other patients die. A value judgement would place a higher worth on the life of the doctor your patient, as you possess the academic knowledge, good health and independence. A doctor also has a duty of care, having taken a Hippocratic Oath. Peri is the patient in this scenario and so logically The Doctor’s survival ensures the survival of hypothetical future ‘patients’ suggesting he has a duty of care which leads to a non-utilitarian decision that is also in line with the principles of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, as discussed in Chapter One. Kahane et al (2015) stated that, ‘Utilitarian’ judgement (is) positively correlated with primary psychopathy and reduced empathic concern’, which supports the Doctor’s rejection of utilitarian ideas in favour of empathy. The Doctor’s action may be seen to be in line with common moral rules, such as those laid down by religious teaching.

**_The Girl Who Waited (BBC, 2011)_ **

In the episode ‘The Girl Who Waited’, The Doctor and companions Amy and Rory travel to a planet infected with a deadly virus that later leaves The Doctor confined to their means of transport, the TARDIS ( Time And Relative Dimensions In Space). Initially both The Doctor and Rory step out onto the planet and go through a door by pressing a green button, Amy leaves the TARDIS later and enters the door by pressing a red button which places her in a separate time stream where one minute in normal time equates to approximately a week in Amy’s new time stream. The rescue attempt results in The Doctor and Rory landing in Amy’s future. The Doctor makes contact with the younger Amy through a device called ‘The Glass’ and is able to bring this earlier Amy into the same time stream as her future self, meaning there are now two versions of Amy. The older Amy demands to come aboard the TARDIS with the younger Amy, The Doctor lies as he states that both versions of Amy can board the TARDIS and the two parallel time streams would be balanced by the TARDIS.

In the dilemma the Doctor’s decides to be dishonest. If the Doctor had told the truth, two possible scenarios may have emerged from the incident: Young Amy has to live thirty-six years of a solitary existence before being rescued or the Older Amy has to die to let Younger Amy board the TARDIS and be rescued. The Doctor’s lie could have resulted in an additional scenario, the death of both versions of Amy from a time stream collapse because both cannot exist in the same time. Assuming both Amys survive to board the TARDIS, the younger of the two cannot develop into the elder and the elder version cannot initiate the scenario in the first place meaning that linear time cannot be sustained and thus, it collapses. The impossible scenario is similar to the laws of a Grandfather Paradox, where if a person goes back in time and kills their grandfather then they will no longer exist (Smith, 2019).

When considering a Kant’s Axe type scenario, as discussed in Chapter One, The Doctor’s action is morally wrong as he lied. Kant (cited in Korsgaard, 1985) explains how The Categorical Imperative to tell the truth relies on the assessor, the person making the judgement, considering Universalizability (Kant, 1785) or the thought of ‘what if everybody did that?’. Universalizability furthers the idea that we should think of the liar as a morally bad person for they are acting selfishly, considering themselves the exception to this rule _._ A teleologist may counterargue that circumstantial factors motivated The Doctor’s untruth as his lie did not yield a good outcome; however, introducing a false expectation was conducive to the emotional health of all parties. Acting truthfully may have motivated action by either Amy to kill or displace the other, aggravating and worsening the outcome of the scenario. It may be considered that in this case the Doctor’s lie results in the best outcome possible in the circumstances and shows empathy as he takes into consideration the feelings of the two Amys.

The Doctor is an approximation of the Christian ideal as he, ‘…might appear to offer a suitable comparison to Christ’ as a ‘morally driven hero, given to sacrifice’, who also appears to rise from the dead (Crome, 2015). Christianity as a religion bases its laws on unconditional commandments, such as ‘thou shalt not kill’, having himself not directly intended to kill- (Exodus 20:13, Bible: King James Version), as discussed in Chapter 1. Although many may consider lying to be morally wrong, The Doctor may be viewed as a fundamentally ‘good’ character as he agonises over decisions and aims to do the ‘right’ thing; however, scenarios such as this are very complex and there is not a straight forward choice between two clear options, one good and the other bad.

**_World Enough and Time (WEAT) 2017_ **

The dilemma faced in the episode ‘World Enough and Time’ (WEAT) is also complex and provides opportunities for debate. If the armed man- protagonist within the dilemma, Jorj- kills the only human in the room, Bill, he stops the oncoming Cybermen and leaves the other characters in the room alive **.** Jorj decides to kill Bill and is responsible for her death.However, if he had decided not to act, he would be responsible for other’s deaths at the hands of the Cybermen. If this were to happen a deontologist would not hold him morally responsible for any of the deaths as he has not made a positive action to kill them (BBC, 2017a). In contrast, the utilitarian position gives a moral value to a person choosing not to take action, what Lucas (1995) refers to as Negative Responsibility, which concerns what an individual fails to prevent; if non-intervention fails to maximise the welfare of the majority the action is wrong. The scenario resulting from Jorj’s inaction would minimise the welfare of the majority, reinforcing negative consequences.

We can compare the problem in the episode to the options offered to participants in the Trolley Problem study discussed in Chapter One. Jorj here acts as the observer at the side of the train track, he has the means to figuratively ‘push the person onto the tracks’, to kill one person rather than four (Moore et al, 2008). The scenario provides a dilemma as it involves prioritising selected lives above others and the greater number of people are given a higher relative value.

Williams (cited in Chappell, 2018) proposes the idea that a human reaction and judgement is too vastly nuanced to warrant religious damnation, decisions made in complex situations cannot be defined by a school of thought as a human is a being of emotion, not pure computation. Thomas Aquinas says of a defensive action that ‘moral acts take their species according to what is intended’ and that having ‘two effects, only one of which is intended, while the other is beside the intention’. Here, Jorj is the defendant, although he intends to save lives, another life has to end. He could be considered a reluctant utilitarian in this sense as the moral value of his actions is based on his intention to save and preserve life.

The episodes chosen can aid our understanding of Doctor Who as an empathetic character with emotional attachments who faces complex situations with no easy answer. The actions of other characters in the series also allow debates around the moral dilemmas portrayed.

**Chapter Three – Viewer reception and response**

This chapter will look at television and the way programmes, such as Doctor Who, were delivered to the public and later how social media enabled viewers to give feedback on programmes and communicate with other fans. There will be an analysis of episode reception and the debates generated through reference to three modes of gauging audience reaction; YouTube reviews from non-BBC sources, for example The Who Addicts; [OM] BBC publications such as Doctor Who Magazine (episode commentaries etc); and more in-depth academic material.

During the late twentieth century television existed as the primary platform for shared media, providing a common experience that could be discussed with friends the following day. It now operates alongside online platforms like Twitter and Snapchat which provide a different form of shared interaction. Public Service broadcast programming now has a receding influence on the modern consumer, the BBC is just one of many sources of media content available. When the BBC was created in 1922 its aim was to act in the public interest: their stated purpose was to inform, educate and entertain the population and treat viewers, ‘…not just as consumers, but as members of a wider society’ (BBC, 2017b). The organisation’s most recent statement of intent continues to emphasise its fundamental ‘Britishness’ which must be incorporated into every one of the programmes it develops, and this is achieved through authorship, identity and the clear representation of defined British values. In recent years, the BBC has focussed more on promoting its ideals through audience engagement and interaction with its produced content and services, in order to present itself as valuable to a wider audience. Therefore, content produced must be of high quality and contain informative, entertaining and unbiased information to serve and engage the wider public. The corporation’s Annual Plan for 2018-19 gives details of their duties and states that the, ‘…BBC must ensure that (they)… have regard to economic, social and cultural benefits and costs’. The content aimed at young people should provide a safe and trusted space where they can be entertained, explore new interests and be supported to increase their skills to engage with the world. 

The target demographic for Doctor Who has changed dramatically since the show’s beginning, from its original broadcast in the 1960s as an educational family show to appeasing its long-term fans in the 1980s with anniversary specials and fan conventions. In more recent years the show’s casting directors have attempted to appeal to younger audiences through relaunching the show in 2005 with younger actors playing The Doctor and by creating spin off series’ that segments programmes for children, such as The Sarah Jane Adventures (2006) from those for adolescents, such as Class (2016). Attitudes to Doctor Who have shifted since the reboot of the show, although the content of the show adheres to the BBC’s core values and aims; however, some fans of the ‘Classic’ series hold elitist and negative views concerning the newer episodes. With the development of internet communication such fan opinions can more easily and quickly be shared on platforms, such as YouTube, where review series such as ‘Doctor Who: The Fan Show’ and ‘Five Who Fans series review’ are available and open to user comments. On these platforms older episodes of the series are less often featured which may reflect the age range using these online platforms. Programmes containing large-scale dilemma will encourage viewers to share their responses and discuss whether they agree or disagree with the actions taken by the main character. This is a departure from the origins of the programme with The Doctor as a role model who cannot be questioned; he was an authority figure in a more deferential society, both in his role as grandfather to his companion, Susan and in his role as a scientist and holder of knowledge.

The BBC may have provided a fictional character, the Doctor, as someone who embodies the values and personal qualities that are in tune with the organisation’s ethos. The Doctor’s dedication to Peri in the Caves of Androzani, as discussed in Chapter Two, demonstrates a parental form of morality. Throughout the story, the Doctor’s ambition never extends beyond consideration for Peri’s wellbeing despite having no long-term attachment to her. This unconditional duty of care towards his companion is similar to the attachment that parents have to their children. Parallels could be drawn to the BBC’s duty of care to their viewers, alongside an awareness that they may be simultaneously reinforcing the parental role as authority figure and providing children and young people with an alternative authority figure to help with their moral development as they progress through the stages Kohlberg identified.

The overwhelming fan response to the Caves of Androzani episode, written on YouTube and social media platforms, saw the majority of viewers feeling that they were engaged by the story- in 2009 it was voted the best Doctor Who storyline of all time. Many of the fans expressed that they were able to relate to and sympathise directly with The Doctor’s actions prompting responses such as, ‘Unlike other stories I was genuinely desperate to see Peri okay at the end of the story’ (, 2009). These responses could reflect the younger age of those responding, as this sacrificial approach by The Doctor would be consistent with a child’s expectations of its own parents.

Many fans, especially younger people, see the Doctor as a role model and integrate his character traits into their own everyday behaviours, for example by putting other people’s needs before their own. The term role model was first used by Robert Merton in 1957, who stated that people compare themselves to reference groups, aspire to belong and have a social role by taking on the characteristics exhibited by group members, for example by idolising actors and copying their desirable behaviours. Individuals are motivated to be part of a shared membership group and aspire to be like their inspirational role model, which can support them in making the right decisions in life (Morgenroth, Ryan & Peters, 2015). Engaging and reflecting on plot lines and scenarios can lead individuals who comment on social media to, ‘…blur the boundaries between virtual reality and physical reality and create “lived-in spaces” that acquire meaning and significance for the individual(s)’ (van Doorn, 2011). 

Another important newly emerged social space is the roleplaying community which is youth oriented. This community provides feedback, discussions and a sense of belonging for fans. Members of the community adopt the appearance and attributes of a character they desire to be identified with and then act on scenarios presented to them (Gutierrez, 2017). Adopting a character can help individuals rationalise problems and define their identities, many use roleplaying to connect with others whilst coping with mental health issues. As with YouTube communities, role-players choose the interactions they have with others and create scenarios based on their own needs and opinions. These communities are prevalent on sites like Twitter that offer boundaries such as character limits to simplify discussions.

‘Social media can promote open dialogue with collaborative reflections’ (Friesen & Lowe, 2012) and, ‘…provides users with the ability to form communities, share information, connect with others, and socialise (Bertot et al, 2012). The video sharing platform, YouTube, has enabled many fans to share their opinions of episodes and create small communities in which they discuss and digest a storyline. Groups form around content creators who share their views, opinions across the fan communities become increasingly polarised. Views expressed within each group become homogenous, a characteristic which has recently been described as an ‘echo chamber’, where an individual’s views are reflected back to them by self-selecting groups (New York Times, 2019). The YouTube channel ‘He Who Moans’ (HWM) (nd) describes the example episode used in Chapter Two, World Enough and Time _,_ as a subversion of the reaction he was anticipating from the Doctor - _‘_ a drastic, shocking f*cking flooring break from what I expected of NewWho’. Across his review videos he casts doubt on The Doctor’s identity as a sympathetic character and reinforces his view of the Doctor as selfish, perhaps reflecting a shift in the Doctor’s character over time

The Doctor’s character appears to have changed since earlier episodes when he appeared to follow a simpler moral code. In Classic Doctor Who ‘The Doctor is often said to be a pacifist, totally against violence or weapons of any sort’, whereas nuanced development in the recent series examines The Doctor’s guilt over genocide, and it could be argued that the moral dilemmas encountered by The Doctor are more complex and this would be a consideration for the dilemma in WEAT. Increasingly in modern episodes, companions are absent. One reviewer says of this, ‘It is only the absence of the companions that allows the Doctor to make the supposedly “right” choice’ (Sandifer, 2014), the absence of external human critique exposes the Doctor’s moral code, allowing viewers to judge the character more harshly. The absence of peer conformity may infer a lack of shared accepted behaviours, giving viewers freedom to impose their own moral judgement. It could be argued that the viewer is now in the role of companion, questioning the Doctor’s actions and demanding a more human intuitive response.

Comments under HWM’s (nd) videos are typically by patrons who share the same opinions, one commenter applauds, ‘…how they subverted the Doctor’s speech thing, he fails to talk a person down into doing what he wants.’ Another states, ‘My favourite part about the episode is, looking back on it, Bill’s conversion is the Doctors fault’. Similar related comments allude to an expectation within the discussion that The Doctor is, in essence, a manipulative character, a view which reflects some of the criticism of utilitarianist approaches to moral decision making. Any action that conforms to the group’s expectation of his character is commended as, ‘…humans have a demonstrated proclivity to conform’; however, group members may feel pressurised to express common views rather than their own, to become liked by others (Mallinson et al, 2018). Humans have a basic need to belong to a group by conforming to accepted behaviours and opinions, as discussed in Kohlberg’s moral development theory. Within fan groups, support from others is enabled through shared interests, with compliance leading to acceptance and positive responses (Asch, 1955), which may aid those with a poor quality of life or ineffective support systems in their personal life.

Another channel, ‘TheWhoAddicts’ (nd) takes a more empathetic approach. Instead of viewing the events on screen and their personal philosophies as separate, the two interact. One presenter says of Bill, in World Enough in Time, ‘I really rooted for them and really loved them…. In that scene, when Bill was shot, it was sad and horrible to watch’. Another adds that the events were ‘extremely shocking’ and ‘hard to watch’. As opposed to the previous reviewer, ‘TheWhoAddicts’ engage personally with the content, putting themselves in place of the characters in the scenario. Comments are mainly empathetic, offering a simple ‘Yes’ or ‘I felt exactly the same’. Agreement furthers a positive relationship between those involved (Grice, 1989). Again there is an absence of any external critique from a different perspective, the commenters conform to the channel’s views under Normative Social Influence, that is, the pressure within a community to affirm the beliefs of the group and be liked by others. Despite the pressures of conformity, active discussion and reflection can allow a commenter to access their own views and to develop confidence and self-awareness (Tutor2U, nd). Although not explicitly expressed, challenging viewpoints can prompt private acceptance among community members. A member may accept the argument of another and integrate it into their personal belief system, yet this may be overruled in public by pressure from others.

A space for debate and challenge can help viewers evaluate problems in their own lives, especially young adults who, although they may not be living independently, have access to these social media spaces to develop themselves. The Life Lessons report by the Sutton Trust (cited in Cullinane & Montacute, 2017) states that the focus of education is more on enabling young people to acquire academic skills; however, social and emotional skills, for example, being able to cope in difficult situations, manage emotions and communicate effectively, can be more vital lessons for life as an adult. The use of social media has its own issues when considering communication rules and may lead to confusion and concern amongst users about how others will respond to their posts; young people may not be honest when commenting on issues for fear of receiving negative comments (Boddy & Dominelli, 2016). By creating shared areas of communication for those who have a similar view, fans engage in discussion devoid of external criticism thereby avoiding encountering the most damaging feedback. However, it has to be recognised that fandom spaces have become more toxic environments for discussion with the latest incarnation of The Doctor as a female character. Previously safe spaces have become polarised by gender-based attitudes and political influence reflecting society wide differences in opinion about how to deliver social justice.

This chapter has looked at how young people may be influenced to change their behaviour to conform to norms and belong to fan groups. There has been an exploration of dynamics that form the broad community of Doctor Who viewers and the increasing influence of fans on social media platforms. At the programme’s inception the programme makers, including the commissioner, were a select group of people who had the power to create the message they wished to be seen, and then broadcast it on a platform they had control over, this is no longer the case. 

**Conclusion**

The programme Doctor Who enables the portrayal of moral dilemmas, allowing viewers to consider the different possible solutions. The BBC has been influential in changing the portrayal of stories with a shift in the moral codes applied over time possibly reflecting the lesser role played by religion on morals in our society. Moral dilemmas appear to be more complex now due to the number of possible opinions and cultural factors, whereas in the past clear guidance was given as to what was right and wrong due to a recognised authority. In this essay the review of different theories has led to a greater understanding of motivations behind people’s behaviours, which is important as beliefs and values have become more individual and decision making more complex.

Fan groups on social media are seen to be an increasing influence and can provide a close knit, supportive circle to young people who are at different stages of their moral development, as their dilemmas can be discussed and examined safely to help develop their life skills. However, this contributes to modern episodes being produced in a more volatile feedback environment and the amount of competition over platforms to deliver content has led to much more responsive content production. It could be argued that the introduction of the female Doctor was due to such external feedback pressure on the BBC commissioners of the programme.

The reception of dilemma within the show is thus the jurisdiction of small communities, usually gravitating towards a prominent individual. Fans may feel empowered rather than just viewing the programme they are able to feed back on the ethics around actions taken in the show’s episodes. The role of the fan is no longer that of passive consumer as they make their opinions known through the growing social media environment; this creates a pressure on the programme makers to reflect their audience’s concerns in the programmes content and may result in future episodes becoming more useful in developing a moral sense of right and wrong that is relevant to the life experience of the audience, addressing some of the complexities involved; however, engagements on fandom sites may now be more combative as the space may be more toxic.

**Author's Note:**

> I finished this essay almost a year ago and since then it has helped me get into University to study Philosophy. My love of Doctor Who has in no way diminished and if anything, it has grown bigger and bigger and bigger.
> 
> (Fun fact for you here: my fic 'to the last syllable' (rip sorry) was my original attempt at this project. For the actual work I submitted, I changed the names round but alas, the story never fully saw the light of day.)
> 
> It's amazing to think now that I completed this under my own steam at a time when I hadn't enjoyed on-screen Doctor Who since Summer 2017 (sorry S11 ;-;) and the tag I loved most (Twissy, no surprise there) had, at most, one update a week from authors I still thank to this day for their persistence and love for the show. Our community was small but we held so much love for each other through our comments and our works. Authors like Melkur_Mistress, Madam Violet, GirlDressedinBlack, Rae_Saxon, D_f_m22... so many more I can't name. I wrote this with them in mind.
> 
> The finished essay is just a fraction of the work I had to do for this but it is, truthfully the only thing I can properly show you.


End file.
